Text 29153, 85 rader
Skriven 2006-05-09 23:05:40 av Philip Lozier (1:267/169)
  Kommentar till text 29119 av Roy Witt (1:1/22)
Ärende: Canadian "Skills"
=========================
 FS>>>>> Our Armed Forces are fighting terrorists in Iraq.  Even President
 FS>>>>> Bush refers to it as a "war",

 PL>>>> HEY! I just said that!

 PL>> I most certainly did.

 RW> Confusion has set in...

 RW>>> Yeah, but you didn't know what you were saying.

 RW> You should have been replying to this.

Blah, blah, blah. You understood though...  I was thinking ahead of myself and
replied ahead of that line as having already read it prior.

Thinking ahead is something you may once have done, but those days are
looooooong gone. That's too much of a struggle for you now though.

 PL>> The facts of life are that soldiers are killing people,

 RW> but not 'innocent' people, as has been claimed.

I never SAID they were innocent... I was not responding to other peoples
claimes, and I have stated so in other posts (that maybe were not so "liberal"
minded). I support OUR (THE USA's) war, remember?

This portion of the thread is to wether or not the USA is engaged in a WAR or
not, as it has been claimed we are not... nothing else, and not related to what
-others- have said about innocents.  Please TRY to pay attention... I know it's
expensive, but please, dig deep.

RW> They return fire when they're shot at.

ABSOLUTELY :)

RW> I wouldn't call someone who's shooting at soldiers, innocent.

Nor would I... not at all!  And we shoot back!  That's what happens in a WAR.

 PL>>  and being killed... in the real world only the jackasses but that
 PL>> "ambassadors of peace" bullshit.

 RW> More confusion.

You're always confused.

 RW> Let us know when you can get your thoughts into
 RW> alignment
 RW> enought to come up with something intelligible.

Stop overANALizing, and SEE dammit!

 PL>> No... since 1945... how many in the line of duty... you knew what I
 PL>> meant, and play SPIN CITY just like your good buddy.

 RW> Fact is, I didn't know what you meant, as you're not clear enough
 RW> to make
 RW> any sense. Confusion on your part is the best I can explain it.

AMAZING! Something YOU didn't understand, but Frank did, as he gave (although
under played by numbers) a proper response to that question.... so who's
confused now, me or Frank?

So now, Frank is understanding things that -you- don't?  Maybe he deserves to
hold the title he was holding so dear after all, as he is starting to show
signs of being sharper than you.

 PL>> Pathetic answer.

 RW> Pathetic reply.

Description of your reply that I'm responding to?  yes... that's accurate. 
That makes a pathetic answer, followed with a pathetic reply by you.  Two in a
row.  Maybe you deserve to hold number one in a different category than you
used to?

 RW> Pathetic is being so confused, you think you're not the idiot.

Not fer nuttin... but yer nuts are showin, and their nuttin.

Phil

--- FMail/Win32 1.60
 * Origin: ==<<FLaSHBaCK-BBS>>== part of the NYCap/Adirondack Netwo (1:267/169)